Share this story

Verizon has sued the City of Rochester, New York, in order to avoid paying fees for deploying 5G equipment and fiber lines.

Verizon's lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of New York on Thursday, claims that the fees are higher than those allowed by federal law. As proof, Verizon points to a Federal Communications Commission preemption order from last year that attempts to limit the fees and aesthetic requirements cities and towns impose on carrier deployments. Rochester imposed its new fees in February of this year.

Further Reading

Verizon may have a good chance of winning its lawsuit if that FCC preemption order stands. But the FCC is being sued by cities from Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona, which claim that the preemption is illegal. (Cities from Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and New York also intervened in the lawsuit to support the case against the FCC.) The outcome of that case could affect the Verizon suit against Rochester and any similar lawsuits filed against cities in the future.

Rochester vowed to fight Verizon's lawsuit and called it "frivolous." The city told WROC and other news outlets that "Other communications providers are complying with the law while building out their networks and paying the necessary fees. These fees are comparable to what other cities required."

FCC preempted fees nationwide

Led by Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC said it aimed to eliminate $2 billion worth of fees over five years, less than 1% of the estimated $275 billion that carriers would have to spend to deploy 5G small cells throughout the United States. Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, criticized cities and towns for "extracting as much money as possible in fees from the private sector" and claimed that lowering the fees would boost broadband deployment. But even Verizon previously said the FCC decision wouldn't change the pace of its 5G rollout.

In Rochester, the fees Verizon complained about include $1,500 per year for attaching a small cell to a city-owned pole. "These rates stand in sharp contrast with the FCC Ruling/Order," Verizon's lawsuit said.

Further Reading

As Verizon noted, the FCC determined that small cell fees of up to $270 a year "are presumptively consistent" with federal law. That doesn't mean cities can't charge more, but the FCC says they have to prove that the fees are a reasonable approximation of all costs and are "non-discriminatory."

"[W]hen Verizon Wireless requested that the City provide cost justification for these rates, the City did not provide any substantiation based on costs," Verizon's complaint said.

Rochester's letter to Verizon, included in an exhibit, said the following:

[W]e have concluded that our permit fees and recurring fees for use of the City's rights of way, including those for pole attachments related to the deployment of small wireless facilities, comply with all federal law requirements and limitations. You understand that requesting justifiable reimbursement from our telecom providers appropriately shifts that burden away from the City's taxpayers who would otherwise incur those costs irrespective of whether or not they are also a Verizon customer. It would be an unfair burden to place solely on our taxpayers.

Verizon also objected to other Rochester fees, including $10,000 up front for deploying up to 2,500 linear feet of underground fiber, plus $5,000 annually in subsequent years. The per-foot charges decrease progressively for larger deployments, going as low as $0.50 per foot each year. But that first $10,000 charge applies even for deployments smaller than 2,500 feet, Verizon said.

"The Code imposes the same $10,000 first-year and $5,000 subsequent-year fees for 'underground' open-trenching use of either one linear foot or 2,500 linear feet, which inherently cannot accurately reflect Defendant's cost in each case," Verizon wrote. "These fees are thus not cost-based, are unreasonable, and are not objectively determined."

The different per-foot fees for longer fiber deployments "inherently cannot accurately reflect Defendant's cost and is thus unreasonable," Verizon also said. Rochester required the same fees for fiber lines that are hung on poles instead of buried, and Verizon raised the same objections to those fees.

While Verizon mostly stopped expanding its fiber-to-the-home service years ago, it still needs to deploy plenty of fiber to provide bandwidth for its 5G wireless network.

Isn't the FCC supposed to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"?

If they dont want to pay the fees on building infrastructure they will basically fully control how about a tax on existing providers so the city can build its own 5g towers and lease it to any carrier wanting to have an edge in the area.

I cant wait to see a proper government run at some point in my lifetime. Here is hoping it happens

Money in politics obfuscates a lot of the really important things in a very effective way. Combined with low voter turnout, and the manipulations of packing/cracking and its not as much that we voted for him, but didnt turn out enough to get a sensible candidate in our broken version of democracy. Remember despite everything, he *Trump* didnt win the popular vote.

Isn't the FCC supposed to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"?

Well, on a silver lining, shit like this is how we got the Title II regulations the last time. I hope this case goes for Verizon, along with a statement of "but if X then it would go the other way". Some progressive representative takes this and boom, federal law with X in it. This was the exact scenario back then. Claiming they couldn't be regulated, the case was won, but with the notion that they were right because they weren't Title II. That paved the way for "OK, Title II it is then". Maybe something like that happens.

I'm not siding with Verizon, but they do have a point that Rochester should justify what the costs are. Or am I missing something?

Quote:

"[W]hen Verizon Wireless requested that the City provide cost justification for these rates, the City did not provide any substantiation based on costs," Verizon's complaint said.

-d

Yeah, although the city firing back pointing out that these are for maintenance costs that will be paid for by all Rochester residents regardless of whether being Verizon customers or not show that in part they're just arguing past eachother.

The one thing I'll give Verizon is that it's pretty weird for the fiber fees to be the same for hung wires and buried wires. But then again, many cities just simply don't have the funding to spend the time and effort getting their rules perfectly sane yet not too convoluted and specific; maybe Rochester should include that in the cost assessment

Considering the FCC abdicated its responsibility to regulate anything of a Network related matter to the FTC, them telling the cities what networking equipment fees are, or aren't, allowed is laughably hypocritical.

5G isn't voice - it's "data". The FCC still retains control over voice lines. But if it's not exclusively voice, the FTC is supposed to regulate it. At least that's what Pai said when they unilaterally removed Net Neutrality in spite of popular opposition to that (and faked support from suspiciously paid for sites).

So, he has no standing to make rules about 5G AT ALL. If there's a problem there, then the FTC is the agency responsible for regulation of the 5G rollout.

Man poor Rochester is just taking it from telcos this week. Yesterday the report that the Rochester Telephone operating company of Frontier is underperforming, and now Verizon suing over municipal fees

Man poor Rochester is just taking it from telcos this week. Yesterday the report that the Rochester Telephone operating company of Frontier is underperforming, and now Verizon suing over municipal fees

Would Frontier even be in Rochester if not for Verizon selling lines or was that always Frontier's?

Is he? I thought he was patently transparent. When, essentially regardless of issue and regardless of how many times or ways you are challenged for specifics, all you can do is wave your hands and talk about how great "it" will be, it's obvious you have no answers and I don't see how anybody could understand that any other way. People who fell for it did so because they wanted to.

Man poor Rochester is just taking it from telcos this week. Yesterday the report that the Rochester Telephone operating company of Frontier is underperforming, and now Verizon suing over municipal fees

Would Frontier even be in Rochester if not for Verizon selling lines or was that always Frontier's?

Edit: Huh. No Rochester is actually an original market.

RochesterTel bought/became Frontier, which is now part of Citizens through a merger/buyout. Rochester was always a separate telco; even back in the AT&T days. I imagine part of the issue Verizon is having is that unlike most of NY they don't own much of anything in the county of Monroe so they can't fall back on their existing infrastructure.

"the FCC said it aimed to eliminate $2 billion worth of fees over five years, less than 1% of the estimated $275 billion that carriers would have to spend to deploy 5G small cells throughout the United States."

Well, $2 billion may not seem like much, but it will go a long way towards Pai's future signing bonus.

Isn't the FCC supposed to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"?

Just checking.

their suppose to. but that body is in my back yard. they did not even tell me it was their.

You can't read arstechnica regularly and not come to this conclusion...when it comes to Pai et al.

My God we're in trouble in this country.

I can't speak for Trump, but I can tell you exactly why McConnell won, and I suspect it applies to Trump as well. Very few people wanted to vote for them based on their policy positions. Rather, they simply could not vote for their opponent. For example, in KY Grimes was actively campaigning against coal and proposed limitations on gun ownership. IN KENTUCKY. Let that sink in. She was also seen as someone who would be a puppet for Pelosi, who was probably the most hated politician in KY because her espoused values are so far left in La La Land.

In short, it was no surprise Grimes or Clinton lost because they alienated too much of the voting population.

On a side note, I keep holding out hope we'll return to sanity in our politics, but I don't see that happening when only the most extreme candidates in either direction are who wins primaries.